Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

People vs.

Ben Rubio
Principle:

When it comes to credibility, the trial courts assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if
not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. [14] The reason is
obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses deportment and manner of testifying, the trial
court is in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate testimonial evidence properly

Facts:

Rubio was convicted before the RTC with qualified rape. He appeal in CA, but was dismissed and affirmed the
decision of RTC.

Now, Accused-appellant appeal in this court and alleges that the testimony of the victim is replete with material
inconsistencies and questions her credibility, to wit:

1. AAA first testified that she returned to their house on September 15, 1997but during cross-
examination she stated that she returned to the house of her parents in 1999.[18]

2. AAA alleged at one point that the accused-appellant had physically beaten her once prior to
the sexual assault subject of the instant case but she then categorically stated that accused-
appellant never laid a hand on her.

3. AAA at first alleged that there was a store in their house at the time of the rape, but later said
it was already closed.

Issue:

won court a quo gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged?

.[11]

Ruling:

NO. The ruling of RTC is correct which affirmed by CA.

In deciding rape cases, the court are guided by these three well-entrenched principles:

(a) an accusation for rape is easy to make, difficult to prove and even more difficult to disprove; (b)
in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized
with utmost caution; and (c) the evidence of the prosecution must stand on its own merits and
cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.

As a result of these guiding principles, the credibility of the victim becomes the single most important issue.

When it comes to credibility, the trial courts assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if
not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. The reason is
obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses deportment and manner of testifying, the trial
court is in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate testimonial evidence properly.

Although there are inconsistencies in AAAs testimony, inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the rape victims
testimony are to be expected. This Court finds that these inconsistencies are not material to the instant case. We
held, Rape victims are not expected to make an errorless recollection of the incident, so humiliating and painful that
they might in fact be trying to obliterate it from their memory. Thus, a few inconsistent remarks in rape cases will not
necessarily impair the testimony of the offended party.
Furthermore, it bears stressing that testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, for youth and
immaturity are badges of truth. The sole testimony of a rape victim, if credible, suffices to convict. The complainants
testimony if credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things may
suffice to support a conviction of rape.

This Court finds that the testimony of AAA is straightforward and convincing with no inconsistency with
regard to the material elements of the crime of rape.

Похожие интересы